Armed Services Committee's Secrecy Encourages Rumor Mill

Capitol Notebook

WASHINGTON — A seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee is considered a prestigious assignment with a lofty purpose: protecting the national security of the United States.

But as newcomers to the committee quickly learn, it is also a secretive institution.

Although it holds public hearings, the committee does its work in private. To the uninitiated, it can seem like something akin to the Politburo, the top policy-making body of the former Soviet Union.

There is, to be sure, good reason for secrecy at times, even in an open, democratic institution like Congress.

Few would dispute that discussions about the capabilities of nuclear warheads, for example, should be held in private. Nor would anyone question the need for confidential briefings about upcoming military operations.

But last week, an Armed Services subcommittee approved - reportedly without dissent - a major new prescription drug benefit for military retirees.

The vote on such a major policy issue was conducted behind closed doors. Officially, the action remains confidential. The work of the subcommittee has not yet been released.

The full committee, chaired by Virginia Sen. John W. Warner, is expected to approve the same package this week. But it's possible the committee took up the matter in a daylong private session Thursday. A spokesman said he did not know.

Presumably, the committee must also vote on a Pentagon proposal to conduct two more rounds of military base closings - a decision that would have huge consequences for military communities across the country, including Hampton Roads.

Last year, the committee debated and voted on the issue in secret. After the session concluded, Warner announced the committee had voted against more base closures.

The secrecy game reached a feverish pitch last week on a program vital to Newport News Shipbuilding: funding for Virginia-class nuclear submarines.

As Warner's committee continued drafting a defense budget in closed session, rumors swirled around the Capitol that senators had added five new submarines to the Pentagon's long-range spending plans.

If it were true, such a decision could be an economic boon to Newport News, which shares submarine work with Connecticut's Electric Boat Corp. The Navy now plans to build only one submarine per year for the next five years. Another five submarines over that time period would double the planned production rate.

At least one congressional newsletter went with the story, which it called "a stunning victory for those pressing to spend fresh billions on the Navy's undersea fleet."

In fact, several sources said, the committee simply authorized - without yet funding - the five submarines that already are in the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan. One submarine, as expected, is funded for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

Confirming the story is no easy task because senators and staff are forbidden to discuss it, under the committee's secrecy rules.

Those rules often put senators in the awkward position of trying to help reporters obtain information without being accused of disobedience.

One senator, who is not from Virginia, tried to offer a reporter his understanding of submarine funding while riding on a train underneath the Capitol. But when another senator boarded within earshot, the source whispered, "I better not talk now."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who heads the seapower subcommittee, said she could not confirm or discuss what her subcommittee did on submarines, citing the secrecy rules.

Asked if the rules are antiquated, Snowe said, "They may be, but until they're changed, I'm obligated to abide by them."

Warner did not invent the committee's secretive budget process. But since taking over the chairman's gavel last year, he has done nothing to change it.

Supporters usually defend the system by citing "tradition" or "respect for the committee process."

But to many others, the rationale for open meetings is simple and clear: Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. And voters deserve legislators who are willing and able to tell them.

HOW THEY VOTED. Here is how Virginia congressmen voted on a major agreement expanding trade with more than 70 African and Caribbean nations. The agreement was approved on a vote of 309 to 110.